I'm just chatting with demort, and he started of by saying that he will be running 3 full tags next round. That would be carnage, carn and heresy for those unaware. He keeps saying that he is proud and honored that he has so many followers, and I try to explain to him why I think having 180 planets under your control is bad for the game.
This continues into the fashion where he says he just can't say no to anyone.
And everyone wants to play with him.

So is this actually a good scenario for the game?
Where we now have demort with around 180 planets before round start, making both universe politics and all other alliances at a huge disadvantage.
Not to mention the coordination of galraids and bashing amongst all other galaxies from start.

I wish Pa staff would get that huge stick out their asses and make tag limits 30/30 or 40/40. So it's at least a bit more balanced in the battle of QUANTITY vs quality.

I'd be honestly suprised if we don't see a new drop in players during/after this round.

The same old whimping from you eh...
If you cannot play with people, maybe you should find another game?
Only because you cant live in a bigger tag, dosnt mean everyone else should suffer.

And it has been show time and time again, that large tags are uncontrollable 9/10 times.
If Demort, or anyone else actualy manage to keep a tag of 120+ players together and benefit from it, i think its well desevered.

DLR last round, Heresy, KittyCatZLionZCaRnCarisan, VGN, a million Norse iterations, and a billion of Nelito/Brazillian tags all keep jumping around into new tags/mergers or have major blows outs just because they simply lack the ability to work with who ever they merge with/play with.

If Demort, or anyone else actualy manage to keep a tag of 120+ players together and benefit from it, i think its well desevered.

It's not A tag. It's plural as in tags. And congrats on making Papadocs prediction come true, he bet you of all people would come with useless comments such as this before hand. I didn't bet against him, as it felt more like a reminder.

Demort is running 3 full tags gonna nap 70% of the universe and still not get a tag win...

The pure irony/hypocrisy here is that 90% of the playerbase cried the first time ult ran with a tag and a half/quarter because so many wanted to play under the HC team, YET here's Demort chilling with 3 FULL tags and barely anyone seems to to give a flying shit...

where do i sign up for an inc free round until 20 fleets hit a tag and they crumble like the proverbial they are?

It's not A tag. It's plural as in tags. And congrats on making Papadocs prediction come true, he bet you of all people would come with useless comments such as this before hand. I didn't bet against him, as it felt more like a reminder.

Tag/alliance, you know what i meant.

Your arguments are so flawed, it realy is not point trying to read your posts with an open mind anymore.
"I wish Pa staff would get that huge stick out their asses and make tag limits 30/30 or 40/40. So it's at least a bit more balanced in the battle of QUANTITY vs quality."

How would Demort running 6 full tags instead of 3 make this game better?

Other alliances dont just have their head in the sand and have no idea about the relationship. They will set their own politics and counteract accordingly.

This sh*t is more worrying than Demort having "3 tags under his command".
But it does prove a very valid point, that either way its usually is 2-3 tags cooporating together for the entire round anyways.

But id rather have half the universe working with Demort, than half the universe having a EOR NAP with what ever alliance is winning from the start wether its ND/DLR or Ult as in the past.

The pure irony/hypocrisy here is that 90% of the playerbase cried the first time ult ran with a tag and a half/quarter because so many wanted to play under the HC team, YET here's Demort chilling with 3 FULL tags and barely anyone seems to to give a flying shit...

Well its quite different with a support tag full of def planets and spiderpigs(he was the undisputeable leader in Ast), and 3 tags playing together, and having 3 full sister tags.
Ultores love to claim they are being unfairly threated when they keep being cheating scumbags, there is no hypocrisy here.

Well its quite different with a support tag full of def planets and spiderpigs(he was the undisputeable leader in Ast), and 3 tags playing together, and having 3 full sister tags.
Ultores love to claim they are being unfairly threated when they keep being cheating scumbags, there is no hypocrisy here.

You really should get off that high horse pal, you played in bows with brazils who have proven time and time again to cheat/do dirty deals with each other and not once did we see you call anyone out publicly from that group

You really should get off that high horse pal, you played in bows with brazils who have proven time and time again to cheat/do dirty deals with each other and not once did we see you call anyone out publicly from that group

Well some BowS guy also had his spiderpigs in our "support tag", VGN, at the time. Think he had 5-6 multies. After he was declined from BowS later on he joined Ult instead.

Which is not my point, the complaints was to Ult having a extra tag full of multies more so than having a extra tag in general

I agree that other alliances aren't blind, and that they will attempt to counter overly large alliances by forming agreements between themselves. However, I'd argue those don't fully solve the problem, because an agreement between 2 60-man alliances is inherently less stable than 1 120-man alliance. Agreements between alliances end several times a round, whereas alliances fall apart much less frequently. In addition, when an agreement between alliances ends, it's often done without bloodshed; when an alliance falls apart (regardless of how many tags it used), it's almost always a messy affair involving emoquitting, multi-round grudges, etc. This forms a buffer against mid-round alliance breakups, because no one comes out ahead.

__________________The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.

Hmm...so am i understanding things correctly; Carn Carnage and Heresey will have same/similar command staff and/or shared command staff channel? That pretty much says they will "coordinate" their attacks even if it is unofficial. So basically you could have the potential to have 180 planets hitting the same X number of tags/forts.

They are a block which is fine, we have had blocks before. My question is will each of them still have a support tag? It also gives them 60 support planets in tag since only 40 count towards tag limit. That is a HUGE advantage and is more my concern. 180 planets, no problem its a block....60 support planets in tag plus whatever support tag....that is an issue and they can hide crashes more effectively and of course can kill enemy value.

Will be interesting to see how the PA universe takes the news. Could be a bash fest since they would only really need like 2 or 3 naps to break the PA universe alliances.

Let the roiding begin =)

__________________
TGV Ex-HC
-No I am not suffering from insanity. I am enjoying every minute of it.

Oh come on CBA, you know there is a substantial difference between 2 alliances having a friendly arrangement yet maintaining their own autonomy, separate hc etc, and 3 alliances having the same overall leader/hc team etc. In a game which is struggling to get over 500 players at this point, having one person/command group in control of a potential 180 planet's is unnecessary and damaging to the game.

__________________

Runner up in the InSomnia 'Drunkest HC' competition - Currently on the wagon

Oh come on CBA, you know there is a substantial difference between 2 alliances having a friendly arrangement yet maintaining their own autonomy, separate hc etc, and 3 alliances having the same overall leader/hc team etc. In a game which is struggling to get over 500 players at this point, having one person/command group in control of a potential 180 planet's is unnecessary and damaging to the game.

__________________The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.

Honoured we are ofc, for the constant need to block on us. As said, we came prepared and all open about it. The others may carry on to search their excuses to.

You mean honoured for the constant need to counter block but i guess that sounds a little ridiculous when I state it like that

As I said before everyone would review their politics early round and adjust accordingly. Everyone wants to win, kudos to carn/hersey putting themselves in with a chance and same said to fl, nd and p3ng.

Then again u think FL wouldnt have coordinated their attacks with others, alltho done so 2 rounds in a row? (from 3 to 5 tags)

ND and DLR wouldnt be napped or allied, as been every round from round start to eor. Plus the overflow players of ND.

I could carry on this list...

You're probably right. However, if you had waited for that to happen before making your move, this thread would've been about FL or ND or Ultores or whatever alliance did it first. We're not in kindergarten any more, but "they started it!" still works well as propaganda and now your opponents are using it against you, rather than you against them. Maybe that was a good exchange. AD isn't what it once was. Time will tell.

I stand by my claim that long-lasting (especially pre-round, all-round) deals are bad for the game, though, regardless of who forge them, and the closer the cooperation, the worse it is.

__________________The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.

You're probably right. However, if you had waited for that to happen before making your move, this thread would've been about FL or ND or Ultores or whatever alliance did it first. We're not in kindergarten any more, but "they started it!" still works well as propaganda and now your opponents are using it against you, rather than you against them. Maybe that was a good exchange. AD isn't what it once was. Time will tell.

I stand by my claim that long-lasting (especially pre-round, all-round) deals are bad for the game, though, regardless of who forge them, and the closer the cooperation, the worse it is.

Absolutely, the less long term deals, the more fluid politics become obviously and more shifts in who has the upper hand.

But it's like sport, everyone wants to see offensive and attacking games but coaches want to win over everything, so you see defensive tactics. You can't blaim the coaches and I think the same applies here. Everyone wants to win over whats the best for the game.

I stand by my claim that long-lasting (especially pre-round, all-round) deals are bad for the game, though, regardless of who forge them, and the closer the cooperation, the worse it is.

The logic here is flawed.
Yeah, some long term lasting deals are indeed very bad for the game, but so far this round you could argue that this time its an exception to the normal.
As long as the battle field is somewhat even, long term block wars can be very healthy for a round, which this round so far kinda proves as both the small fencer tags and the top4 tags by no means is having a terrible or boring round this far.

Now i would only encourage short terms deals, as once the sides get uneven the round might be over before even completing half of the round.

The question is how long FL/p3ng/ND will hit KittyCatZ and falling behind, before they just say f*ck it and go punish the fencers instead.

The logic here is flawed.
Yeah, some long term lasting deals are indeed very bad for the game, but so far this round you could argue that this time its an exception to the normal.
As long as the battle field is somewhat even, long term block wars can be very healthy for a round, which this round so far kinda proves as both the small fencer tags and the top4 tags by no means is having a terrible or boring round this far.

Now i would only encourage short terms deals, as once the sides get uneven the round might be over before even completing half of the round.

The question is how long FL/p3ng/ND will hit KittyCatZ and falling behind, before they just say f*ck it and go punish the fencers instead.

Yeah, some long term lasting deals are indeed very bad for the game, but so far this round you could argue that this time its an exception to the normal.
As long as the battle field is somewhat even, long term block wars can be very healthy for a round, which this round so far kinda proves as both the small fencer tags and the top4 tags by no means is having a terrible or boring round this far.

Agreed, I should've put it differently: long term deals have the potential to be very bad, because they are a constant in a fluid environment. They are not necessarily very bad, because sometimes the circumstances happen to stay the same. Since we're really bad at predicting what'll happen a week or two weeks from now, we shouldn't plan as if we're good at it.

The advantage of short term agreements is that they work just as well as long term agreements in situations in which long term agreements do well, while also working well in situations in which long term agreements are harmful to the game. Short term deals don't have to stay short term, after all. A 3-day NAP can very easily be extended to a week if the circumstances warrant it, and longer if they continue to do so. That way, you get only non-harmful long term agreements, since you don't have to predict the future for weeks in advance.

Swainey is also right: what is good or bad for the game is not necessarily the same as what is good or bad for winning the game. It's unfortunate the incentives are not better aligned, but so it goes.

__________________The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.